OT: Iran

Trump is an absolute menace to the planet, having said that there’s zero chance of a full scale conventional war. Russia would not allow the US to depose the current pro-Russian regime which props up their other allies in the region- Assad for example.

 

Oil priced in USD though, so the £-$ exchange rate also has to be factored in.

 

Much as I detest Putin, he has generally been correct when stating that regime change by external force is a very bad idea. His reasons for holding these opinions are probably very different from mine, but wherever the West has gone in and used force, things have by and large not ended well (or not ended at all).

 

You can only imagine the cries of derision from The Boomers if Corbyn had done the same.

 

On the positive side, if all out war and a global holocaust results, at least it means Liverpool won’t win the Premier League title.

 

I'd just like to offer that if Hitlers generals had been dealt with so decisively things may have been very different.

 

Not all of us are lucky enough to have a politician in charge like Finland have

 

You only have to look at the fantastic success that has followed the demise of Gadaffi and Hussain at the hands of the USA to justify the brave decision taken by Trump from the safety of the White House.
You have to look a bit deeper to justify Trumps Vietnam war stance when the chances were man to man fighting in the field.
For those who don’t know,,, he wouldn’t go!

 

A nuclear bomb dropped on every other part of the world except Barnsley would make the world a bit different and significantly reduce wars too but it wouldn't be any more right.

 

Sends a clear message; we’re not going to stand for it and we know where you live. Excellent, decisive leadership.

 

This is asinine, even for you

 

So you'd be happy to live in a world where rule of law counts for nothing, and summary executions are the norm?

 

How so ? A clinical targeted strike to demonstrate who’s top dog.

 

Because international relations isn't a simple dick measuring contest. Iran is an entirely different and more dangerous proposition than Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which you would describe as having been particularly successful. And comparing it to Europe in the 1930s is nonsensical

 

Sounds like a school bully

 

Iran is America’s sworn enemy and instigated attacks against its troops and it’s embassy. What reaction did they expect ?

 

No, that would be unacceptable. I hate bullies.

 

What you described is a bully's tactics.

 

Except that, as such, Iran has never actually been the 'enemy'. When the U.S. and it's allies invaded Afghanistan in 2001 (another error - you can't 'win' in Afghanistan even if you're the sole greatest power on earth), Iran actually provided huge amounts of assistance to the West. Not that it made any strategic sense to be there in the first place. Al Qaeda wanted to draw the West out into the Middle East, to get them to fight on their turf. What better marketing tool do terror cells have than Western powers stomping around their backyards like they own the place? We fell for it and look what has happened ever since. Since 2001, we've not killed the terrorist beast, we've fed it.

Also, during the multiple insurgencies in Iraq when we occupied it, Iran offered considerable assistance to influence Shia militia. The U.S., and us, refused it.

When we invaded Iraq in 2003, we did so without our 'leaders' even having the slightest understanding of the centuries-old tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Moreover, our leaders didn't even understand the fundamental difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Iran is a predominantly Shia nation of around 80 million people, a completely different ballgame to Iraq of 2003. Anyone who has even the slightest grasp of Middle Eastern history or international relations can see that Iran was and is not a threat to Western strategic concerns. In fact, while Iran has its own strategic concerns throughout its own region, Iran is probably the most stable nation in the region, one which it would make sense for the West to align itself with in future years. All we are doing here is pushing it further into the arms of Russia and, more importantly, China.

We are confident at overthrowing regimes that are not to our tastes but we never really understand what to do next. What's more, we never really appreciate the fact that the West can't run around the world remaking it in its own image without there being consequences. Consider how we would feel today should one of our top generals have been assassinated by a foreign power.

Iran were not the issue in the region. The West has no real strategic concern there. Certainly nothing in the short term that warrants assassinations that violates the sovereignty of a state trying to get back on its feet. And before anyone raises Iran's nuclear threat: Trump had no nuclear crisis with Iran when he came to power. What's more, Iran had no interest in building a H-bomb until the West branded them a part of the 'Axis of Evil'. For years we kept telling them, "you're next!". What's is the ultimate insurance policy? A nuclear bomb. It gives them leverage.

 

What is this nonsense?

The United States has invaded or fought in 84 of the 193 countries recognized by the United Nations and has been militarily involved with 191 out of 193 of them (Iran being one of them, where they overthrew a very liberal society and imposed a highly religious Shah - who presumably you don't like very much).

Yet you sit there and with (presumably) a straight face draw a bizarre false equivalence with Iran and Hitler, ignoring the fact that the invasion of Iraq has been a monumental disaster unstabilising the entire region and spreading terrorism round the globe, just as those who didn't support it predicted.

But yeah. Hitler.